Public market - permission vs. candid

[RBIV]

Great photos Rich, but if you did that where I live, and the cops saw you, it would be a $1000 fine and loss of x4 points on your driver’s licence… for using a device (any kind of device) in your hands whilst in control of a motor vehicle.

Hah! Well, certainly Not Guilty your Honor. I wasn't in *control* of a motor vehicle.
I was controlling my Pentax at the time, the vehicle standing idle, requiring no control at all.

 

[PentUp]

Hah! Well, certainly Not Guilty your Honor. I wasn't in *control* of a motor vehicle.
I was controlling my Pentax at the time, the vehicle standing idle, requiring no control at all.

Ha! The old Pentax defence…
My best friend’s Mrs is a traffic cop, and she assures me that if you are in the driver’s seat and the ignition is on... You are “in control of the vehicle“ and thus fair game (as per the Western Australian Traffic Code).

 

[RichDitch]

Great photos Rich, but if you did that where I live, and the cops saw you, it would be a $1000 fine and loss of x4 points on your driver’s licence… for using a device (any kind of device) in your hands whilst in control of a motor vehicle.

That is a good policy. Here in Arizona we are still arguing about the use of cell phones while in motion and whether or not automated red light runner cameras make intersections more more or less dangerous. We require seatbelt use in cars unless you are riding in the bed of a pickup truck. I've seen many people behind the wheel applying their makeup in the morning rush hour traffic, and once I even saw a person holding a bowl of cereal in one and a spoon in the other while on the drive to work.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

The


Personally I don’t do much asking because I want to capture something as natural as possible. Street portraiture is fine but I don’t really shoot with the proper gear to make my subjects look as good as they should.

It is usually pretty obvious when they don't want to be photographed. When they don't know that they are being photographed then it has to be a public place and the photographer has to have ethics.

Close up and getting consent, tacit or otherwise, is possible - but crowds and far away might be impossible.

 

[Box Man]

It is usually pretty obvious when they don't want to be photographed. When they don't know that they are being photographed then it has to be a public place and the photographer has to have ethics.

Close up and getting consent, tacit or otherwise, is possible - but crowds and far away might be impossible.

It's obvious that photographers--and this includes smartphone photographers--should abide by the laws of whichever place they plan to shoot in. But more than the law we must be guided by a certain ethic and strive to never diminish the subject of our photography. I still have faith that most of us are capable of exercising good judgement.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I suggest that it is indiscriminate use of mobile phone cameras in an unethical manner that has made it difficult for those using conventional cameras.

 

[RBIV]

I suggest that it is indiscriminate use of mobile phone cameras in an unethical manner that has made it difficult for those using conventional cameras.

Hmmm. I can't argue the validity of that. We could maybe discuss "unethical." But I mostly agree with what you are saying.

On the other hand, widespread use of cell phone cameras has made it equally difficult for "authorities" to abuse their powers without being caught.

So... I guess we have some give and take here.

 

[Poagao]

I suggest that it is indiscriminate use of mobile phone cameras in an unethical manner that has made it difficult for those using conventional cameras.

It has redefined what it means to take a photo. Using a mobile phone to take a photo has come connote putting someone on blast, a punitive action. But I'm not sure that = unethical. If people hadn't done this, the killers of people like George Floyd and Jordan Neely et al would likely have gone unpunished.

 

[mga010]

It’s not merely about abiding by the law, however.

Some people in Germany get mad when they see a camera. I thought they should be used to that by the omnipresent smartphones. But no, I got angry calls many times. And the law is on their side, if you dare to publish the image somewhere. If they are shown in a vulnerable situation, that's even a criminal offense.

 

[mga010]

Since I cannot edit the previous posting anymore, I add it in a reply: Recently, there has been a discussion if the liberty of art act can be applied to street photography. That would include photos of recognizable people in their environment, clothing and realistic behavior as met on the street with artistic intentions. It would not include purely commercial use of such an image, e.g., for advertisement. It should be expected that the discussion of art or commerce in court will be difficult. Moreover, personal rights are always to be respected.